discussion Roe V. Wade 50-year landmark overturned by SCOTUS 6-3

[Mr. Loco]

14 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Well, a foetus growing inside of another person *affects* that human being, so what is your point? The foetus has no right to use someone's body against their consent. 

 

Your decision not to donate your kidney affects people waiting for a transplant, but nobody's forcing you to give up your kidney, are they? That's because bodily autonomy is a basic human right and trumps even other people's right to life. Even if foetus is a person, it is not entitled to use gestator's body to sustain itself. 

That would be a valid point if my kidney was the only one that could save a person's life, but for a person in need for a kidney transplant any compatible kidney will do (even that of a recently deceased person), that's why there's a list of donnors, and yeah I'm all for donating my own kidneys after death or those from my loved ones if I'm the one to make the decision. And yes, I know that the list for kidney donnors is huge, and that could be solved if simply more people would accept to donate their organs and their loved ones organs after death, but that's really a different problem than the one we're talking about here. Agree that bodily autonomy is a basic human right, but the right to life is the one right above it. 

[John Slayne]

1 minute ago, Mr. Loco said:

That would be a valid point if my kidney was the only one that could save a person's life, but for a person in need for a kidney transplant any compatible kidney will do (even that of a recently deceased person), that's why there's a list of donnors, and yeah I'm all for donating my own kidneys after death or those from my loved ones if I'm the one to make the decision. And yes, I know that the list for kidney donnors is huge, and that could be solved if simply more people would accept to donate their organs and their loved ones organs after death, but that's really a different problem than the one we're talking about here. Agree that bodily autonomy is a basic human right, but the right to life is the one right above it. 

Well finding a compatible donor is hard for the person waiting, but if you put yourself forward you could easily find someone to donate to. The point is nobody can force you to do this, even though people on waiting lists actually die it's just not their right to snatch your kidney because your body is for you to use, not for anyone else. 

 

How is it a different problem? A foetus needs a gestator's uterus to survive, just like there are people who need your kidney to survive. Should we take your kidney without your consent? Why is it okay to force someone to use their uterus to support another person's life but it's suddenly not ok to use your kidney to support a life?

 

I'm sorry but you are not making sense, if the right to life is superior and above autonomy, then forced organ donations should be a thing, at least for organs you can live without. Someone's right to live is more important than your right to use both kidney, you can live with just one so by your logic you should be forced to donate the other to honour someone else' right to live, which, like you said, is more important.

 

You can't claim the right to live is above the right of bodily autonomy but then not be consistent about it. You are applying this logic to pregnancy only and literally nothing else.

[Communion]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Loco said:

That would be a valid point if my kidney was the only one that could save a person's life

So you're saying that you are fine with the government harvesting your organs while alive if demand overtook supply, yes?

[C-Amber]

2 hours ago, Mr. Loco said:

I don't WANT them to go through pain, I really believe they should get all the possible medical and physical assitance so their pregnancies go in the best way possible and after the prengancy as well offer for government support or help to get them into adoption programs, etc. I don't believe women are in any case guilty of what's hapenning to them, but the child is not guilty either and it's life shouldn't be ended just like that. 

 

Your government can't even take the guns away from kids, and you want them to give full support to women who got pregnant by r*pe??? You living in fancy world. Non of those women will be offered ANYTHING. they will be left to suffer alone, probably end their life later or end up having serous mental problems that will carry on to the child and that child will grow to end in jail or worse because he got no proper childhood, unless a miracle happened to 1 of 1000000000 of the children. Now is this the country you want to create? Because believe this gonna happen to majority of the women.

[Literature]

4 hours ago, John Slayne said:

Well finding a compatible donor is hard for the person waiting, but if you put yourself forward you could easily find someone to donate to. The point is nobody can force you to do this, even though people on waiting lists actually die it's just not their right to snatch your kidney because your body is for you to use, not for anyone else. 

 

How is it a different problem? A foetus needs a gestator's uterus to survive, just like there are people who need your kidney to survive. Should we take your kidney without your consent? Why is it okay to force someone to use their uterus to support another person's life but it's suddenly not ok to use your kidney to support a life?

 

I'm sorry but you are not making sense, if the right to life is superior and above autonomy, then forced organ donations should be a thing, at least for organs you can live without. Someone's right to live is more important than your right to use both kidney, you can live with just one so by your logic you should be forced to donate the other to honour someone else' right to live, which, like you said, is more important.

 

You can't claim the right to live is above the right of bodily autonomy but then not be consistent about it. You are applying this logic to pregnancy only and literally nothing else.

Not actively participating in helping someone when they need it is different to actively killing them. This is a unique case where a human being is literally inside you, but it is an unavoidable part of nature.

 

Anyways, I thought people were pro-choice because they do not believe the fetus to be an individual entity separate from of the woman's body and thus it becomes her decision what to do with it. But I'm reading a whole separate argument. Are you accepting the premise that the fetus is a separate and individual human being, but then saying the mother's right to comfort overrides this human being's right to life?

 

OT: Personally, I think both the left and the right are being too extreme. I think there is room for abortion very early in the pregnancy and only for very valid reasons. IMO abortion should ONLY be allowed in the second and third trimester in the case of life threatening situations. Also contraception being banned wouldn't make sense to me.

 

I think Utah does an excellent job of finding this middle ground, although I would also add a time window for when these abortions are permissible and not just allow them at any point in the pregnancy:

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Literature

[A Bomb]

6 hours ago, Mr. Loco said:

I don't WANT them to go through pain, I really believe they should get all the possible medical and physical assitance so their pregnancies go in the best way possible and after the prengancy as well offer for government support or help to get them into adoption programs, etc. I don't believe women are in any case guilty of what's hapenning to them, but the child is not guilty either and it's life shouldn't be ended just like that. 

 

I believe everyone should have autonomy to do whatever they want AS LONG AS THOSE DECISIONS DON'T AFFECT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

Good things cells comparable to a parasite unable to live outside the host isn’t a human yet  

[Literature]

5 hours ago, Mr. Loco said:

Of course I know banning abortion is not the only thing to ensure kids get healthy lifes, it's just the first step, but yeah, I know the government is trash and they should really do much more than that. I agree those kind of programs are really necessary, as well as regulation of gun laws, etc. there's just so much more that needs to be done.

Well said! Thank you for not only thinking in black and white terms and limiting yourself to one political position and instead assessing the situation thoroughly

[A Bomb]

5 hours ago, Mr. Loco said:

Of course I know banning abortion is not the only thing to ensure kids get healthy lifes, it's just the first step, but yeah, I know the government is trash and they should really do much more than that. I agree those kind of programs are really necessary, as well as regulation of gun laws, etc. there's just so much more that needs to be done.

The first step is to ban the option? Not have these well funded expansive  programs be you know a reality?  Sir, you are genuinely a lunatic. 

[Communion]

48 minutes ago, Literature said:

Are you accepting the premise that the fetus is a separate and individual human being

No? Literally any basic level of reading comprehension should make it easy to understand the counter-argument.

 

You and others are saying that a fetus is a human life, and you're being told that this (scientifically inaccurate) belief doesn't impact the argument of bodily autonomy because the government cannot force possession of your organs. If a government can mandate a woman must let a fetus inhabit her uterus against her will to survive, then there's no reason why they couldn't also force people to give up organs for those who they deem need them more.

 

(For all the claims about the importance of life, many people are ignoring the fact that pro-lifers are who are the most against scientific innovation to create life outside of the womb. So if you're for forced births AND think it's "ungodly" for scientists to help people make test-tube babies, you *are* more-so concerned with control of uteruses)

 

Your giddiness from thinking you had a gotcha is funny because it shows that maybe you're too simple to understand the pretty basic pro-choice argument.  Pro-choice people don't think fetuses aren't "human beings" - we recognize that fetuses are not sentient until the 24-week period and thus themselves do not feel anything nor are they sentient before that point. And even then, the existence of a newly sentient fetus is not worth that of a fully-grown adult person which is why such an argument also supports the reality of third-trimester abortions. Especially because those in nearly all cases are situations where the fetus' life is coming at the cost of the mother's.

 

The argument of sentience makes anyone with common sense see abortion as clear-cut. We have to go into these hypotheticals about the inherent right of your physical body like your organs and law because your religious delusions make you not understand how backwards and horrific your desired legal outcome is. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Communion

[Literature]

30 minutes ago, Communion said:

No? Literally any basic level of reading comprehension should make it easy to understand the counter-argument.

 

You and others are saying that a fetus is a human life, and you're being told that this (scientifically inaccurate) belief doesn't impact the argument of bodily autonomy because the government cannot force possession of your organs. If a government can mandate a woman must let a fetus inhabit her uterus against her will to survive, then there's no reason why they couldn't also force people to give up organs for those who they deem need them more.

I already said there's a big difference between not participating in the saving of a life and actively killing a life. 

 

30 minutes ago, Communion said:

(For all the claims about the importance of life, many people are ignoring the fact that pro-lifers are who are the most against scientific innovation to create life outside of the womb. So if you're for forced births AND think it's "ungodly" for scientists to help people make test-tube babies, you *are* more-so concerned with control of uteruses)

Not sure why you are assuming that was my position. I already said I believe both sides are too extreme.

 

30 minutes ago, Communion said:

Your giddiness from thinking you had a gotcha is funny because it shows that maybe you're too simple to understand the pretty basic pro-choice argument. 

What giddiness? I didn't use any emotionally charged language in that post, nor did I even come for a particular side. Are you projecting your own insecurity - perhaps because you could not rebut the distinction I made between active participation and active termination?

 

30 minutes ago, Communion said:

 Pro-choice people don't think fetuses aren't "human beings" - we recognize that fetuses are not sentient until the 24-week period and thus themselves do not feel anything nor are they sentient before that point. And even then, the existence of a newly sentient fetus is not worth that of a fully-grown adult person which is why such an argument also supports the reality of third-trimester abortions. Especially because those in nearly all cases are situations where the fetus' life is coming at the cost of the mother's.

 

Firstly, I expressed additional surprise because that other user seemed to have a new pro-choice stance I haven't seen before. I already know what the usual pro-choice stance is, and I already stated it in my post. Secondly, YOU may believe fetuses aren't sentient or have the right to life until 24 weeks, but I don't. I think they earn the right to life much earlier than that. I'd limit it to the first trimester, perhaps even earlier. Many babies survive when they are born before your 24 week marker and brain activity actually begins as early as 6 weeks. I also said that in life-threatening scenarios the life of the mother overrides the life of the baby, no matter how far into the pregancy, so not sure why you added that in your comment as if I was against that.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Literature

[Communion]

25 minutes ago, Literature said:

I already said there's a big difference between not participating in the saving of a life and actively killing a life. 

No, based on the law as it already exists in America, there is not. Our law already allows for those in permanent vegetative states to be removed from life support. Before sentience, a fetus is most similar to a human in a vegetative state. You cannot kill someone in a vegetative state because that person is no longer a living person. Your ideas and logic are no different than suggesting people who unhook their loved one from life support are 'actively killing them". Please tell people who had to make such hard decisions that they're murderers - you'd be a laughing stock. 

 

Just as common law says that the right to consent to or withhold treatment (life support) defers from someone in a vegetative state to their family, a fetus' lack of sentience means they themselves hold no such rights.

 

Your idea that sentience aka personhood is not required to have an inalienable right to life is why people are showing you the nonsense you're suggesting and where it leads: the state saying it can take your organs for a much younger person without your consent; the state forcing a loved one in a vegetative state to be forced on life support, etc.

 

25 minutes ago, Literature said:

YOU may believe fetuses aren't sentient or have the right to life until 24 weeks, but I don't.

Yes, your refusal to accept modern scientific consensus because you instead think there's some big bearded white man in the sky who wears sandals and has fat babies flying around him with wings while dancing on clouds is why we're in this situation to begin with and having this conflict. You believe your religious delusions entitle you to control others' lives, even when your delusions are as removed from modern medical consensus as possible.

 

25 minutes ago, Literature said:

Many babies survive 

No, they do not. A fetus can only survive outside the womb at that point if immediately hooked on medical systems that mimic and recreate the life support provided by the uterus. A fetus at that point is not viable, let alone sentient. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Communion

[Literature]

11 minutes ago, Communion said:

No, based on the law as it already exists in America, there is not. Our law already allows for those in permanent vegetative states to be removed from life support. Before sentience, a fetus is most similar to a human in a vegetative state. You cannot kill someone in a vegetative state because they person is no longer a living person. 

 

Just as common law says that the right of consent to or withhold treatment (life support) defers from someone in a vegetative state to their next of kin, a fetus' lack of sentience means they themselves hold no such rights.

 

Your idea that sentience aka personhood is not required to have an inalienable right to life is why people are showing you the nonsense you're suggesting and where it leads: the state saying it can take your organs for a much younger person without your consent; the state forcing a loved one in a vegetative state to be forced on life support, etc.

 

Yes, your refusal to accept modern scientific consensus because you instead think there's some big bearded white man in the sky who wears sandals and has fat babies flying around him with wings while dancing on clouds is why we're in this situation to begin with and having this conflict. You believe your religious delusions entitle you to control others' lives, even when your delusions are as removed from modern medical consensus as possible.

 

No, they do not. A fetus can only survive outside the womb at that point if immediately hooked on medical systems that mimic and recreate the life support provided by the uterus. A fetus at that point is not viable, let alone sentient. 

1.) Once again, you are unable to understand the difference between not offering someone care and actively killing that person. Or maybe you just don't want to.

2.) When did I bring in religion to this. You are completely making things up and assuming incorrect things about me and parading them as facts. Unbelievable. There is no definitive scientific definition as to when a fetus gains the right to life. That unclear definition is where this entire issue comes from in the first place.

3.) So the fetus is still surviving, then. Meaning it is alive. Meaning it is a human being, no different than a person on a ventilator or a new born infant. Meaning it deserves the right to have its life continue onward. I mean you can disagree with that and say its perfectly fine to have aborted it at that stage...I just think that's evil.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[Communion]

1 minute ago, Literature said:

Once again, you are unable to understand the difference between not offering someone care and actively killing that person. Or maybe you just don't want to.

Again, you're being dishonest because you can't rectify with the contradictions of your religious delusions. For those in a vegetative state, the care is available and offered. The family still has the right to deny their loved one that life support and actively unhook them, actively choosing to end their physical life.

 

This is not considered "killing" let alone murder because those in a PVS lack sentience aka personhood. 

 

There is no difference between it not being murder when a family removes a loved one from life support and when a woman removes a fetus from her uterus; they could not exist outside of those conditions and were not sentient.

 

4 minutes ago, Literature said:

There is no definitive scientific definition

The modern medical consensus is that sentience does not develop until the 24~ week mark.

 

6 minutes ago, Literature said:

So the fetus is still surviving

No, it's being kept alive by no ability of its own, because it lacks the ability to, just like those in permanent vegetative states. 

[Literature]

20 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, you're being dishonest because you can't rectify with the contradictions of your religious delusions. For those in a vegetative state, the care is available and offered. The family still has the right to deny their loved one that life support and actively unhook them, actively choosing to end their physical life.

 

This is not considered "killing" let alone murder because those in a PVS lack sentience aka personhood. 

 

There is no difference between it not being murder when a family removes a loved one from life support and when a woman removes a fetus from her uterus; they could not exist outside of those conditions and were not sentient. 

Not once have I mentioned religion. Not once. Seems like you need to keep referring to it as a strawman to bolster your claims.

 

Someone in a permanently vegetative state is guaranteed death; even if you looked at abortion as the mere removal of a fetus in the womb and not feticide -  mere inactive participation (which it isn't) - then you are still destroying a human offspring with an entire life ahead of it. Someone effectively dead is nowhere near similar to someone effectively at the very beginning of life. 

 

20 minutes ago, Communion said:

The modern medical consensus is that sentience does not develop until the 24~ week mark.

Firstly, how do you even define sentience in scientific terms? There is a metaphysical element to the concept of sentience. For example, infants don't become self aware at 18 months. Is your definition of sentience "able to feel pain"? Secondly, is sentience your criteria for the right to life, which is what I asked? Would you, for instance, think it is perfectly fine to destroy a nest of bird eggs, as they are not yet sentient? Even if it was your criteria for the right to life, it is not a scientific criteria, it is a subjective one that I disagree with.

 

20 minutes ago, Communion said:

No, it's being kept alive by no ability of its own, because it lacks the ability to, just like those in permanent vegetative states. 

So it is surviving then, lol. It's no different than an infant on a ventilator. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[John Slayne]

1 hour ago, Literature said:

Not actively participating in helping someone when they need it is different to actively killing them. This is a unique case where a human being is literally inside you, but it is an unavoidable part of nature.

 

Anyways, I thought people were pro-choice because they do not believe the fetus to be an individual entity separate from of the woman's body and thus it becomes her decision what to do with it. But I'm reading a whole separate argument. Are you accepting the premise that the fetus is a separate and individual human being, but then saying the mother's right to comfort overrides this human being's right to life?

 

OT: Personally, I think both the left and the right are being too extreme. I think there is room for abortion very early in the pregnancy and only for very valid reasons. IMO abortion should ONLY be allowed in the second and third trimester in the case of life threatening situations. Also contraception being banned wouldn't make sense to me.

 

I think Utah does an excellent job of finding this middle ground, although I would also add a time window for when these abortions are permissible and not just allow them at any point in the pregnancy:

 

But abortion is not about actively killing the foetus, the goal of abortion is to end pregnancy. The fact that the foetus can't survive outside of the gestator is irrelevant and it's the foetus' problem anyway. If the foetus can survive and be sustained outside of the womb, sure, whatever, keep it alive, but just because it can't live on its own doesn't mean the gestator should be forced to support it with their body against their consent. 

 

You and the other user still haven't explained how it is different to my kidney example. 'This is a unique situation' is not an argument, the principle and logic I explained are the same. The right to bodily autonomy means that nobody can force to use/give up a part of your body to support someone else. If you are anti-choice when it comes to abortions but pro-choice when it comes to organ donation you are being unreasonable and inconsistent because you are applying different logic to essentially the same scenario where one person can save the other with their body. 

 

I personally don't think a foetus is a person. An acorn is not an oak tree and, especially in the early stages of the pregnancy, a foetus doesn't meet most personhood requirements, although who qualifies as a person could a long philosophical discussion. When exactly personhood starts is a metaphysical debate and I don't think there is one point we could name where a foetus becomes a person, but when it comes to abortion, whether or not a foetus is a person does not matter. 

 

Even though I don't think it is a person, and you can't metaphysically prove that it is, I am willing to concede that point because the right to bodily autonomy overrides the right to live. I think it's incredibly insensitive to call it 'the right to comfort' considering how invasive a pregnancy is to the gestator's body and can leave the gestator permanently disabled or in same cases even dead. Once again, similar to how a kidney donation is a major surgical procedure that has implications for your health for the rest of your life. Being able to decide what happens to your body and who uses it is a basic human right, not some frivolous luxury.

 

I also disagree with your wording of abortions being allowed for 'very valid reasons'. What is a 'very valid reason' and who decides what counts as a 'very valid reason'? To me the fact that a person does not wish to use their body to sustain a life is a 'very valid reason'. 

[Communion]

24 minutes ago, Literature said:

Not once have I mentioned religion

You're being mocked for trying to frame yourself as reasonable despite there being no secular evidence for literally anything of what you're saying. Of course you haven't opted to religion being the base of your worldview - that doesn't mean we can't laugh at and point out the truth to the nonsense you're preaching.

 

You're getting attitude because your arguments being pedantry and fallacies makes it clear you're arguing in bad faith. It's why when it's pointed out what the modern medical consensus is, you pivot to "one definitive definition". When confronted with the reality that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb without medical intervention, you pivot to debating that being kept alive is "surviving" to justify government-sanction of people's uteruses. 

 

24 minutes ago, Literature said:

Someone in a permanently vegetative state is guaranteed death

You're not operating in the real world at this point. People in PVS have been kept alive on life support for upwards of 5-6 years. The decision to allow families to remove their loved one from life support is not based on how far someone can live on life support. It's based on that, whether now or 6 years from now, that person is no longer sentient. The person they loved is no longer there. What is left is a biological system without a personhood behind it.

 

24 minutes ago, Literature said:

then you are still destroying a human offspring with an entire life ahead of it

So you're then agreeing the government can take your liver and heart before you die and give it to a young patient who needs it since you're no longer not even talking about the inherent value of being alive but life as some abstract process and timeline. Holy **** you fell for it. 

 

24 minutes ago, Literature said:

Is sentience your criteria for the right to life, which is what I asked? Would you, for instance, think it is perfectly fine to destroy a nest of eggs, as they are not yet sentient? Even if it was your criteria, it is not a scientific criteria

1) You've been told this a million times, yes. 

 

2) I'm confused what you're even trying to ask. Not even vegans would argue that they don't eat animal eggs due to eggs being sentient. Vegans don't eat things like chickens' eggs because such is an animal by-product (aka a thing) and that the commodification of such would create a justification for the meat industry. Odd how vegans have a better concept of animals' rights to their uterus than you do for human female's uteruses. 

 

3) It is in fact the scientific criteria for life. Again, it's already been explained to you how American society has laws on the books allowing those who are no longer sentiment to be removed from life support by loved ones because the modern medical consensus is that they are no longer a living person.

 

You may not agree, but the legal system as is is not on your side. And the only way to get it to your side is by rejecting all we know about secular modern science and instead letting what we know to be life and being alive by defined by theological and metaphysical debates.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Communion

[Literature]

6 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Even though I don't think it is a person, and you can't metaphysically prove that it is, I am willing to concede that point because the right to bodily autonomy overrides the right to live. I think it's incredibly insensitive to call it 'the right to comfort' considering how invasive a pregnancy is to the gestator's body and can leave the gestator permanently disabled or in same cases even dead. Once again, similar to how a kidney donation is a major surgical procedure that has implications for your health for the rest of your life. Being able to decide what happens to your body and who uses it is a basic human right, not some frivolous luxury.

See I actually agree with you there. If the fetus is life-threatening to the mother then I think abortion is a fair option, as her right to life supercedes the fetus's. But I wouldn't agree that the right to bodily autonomy overrides the right to life especially as the fetus gets older (which is why i think there is some room for abortion in the early period although we may disagree on what constitutes a valid reason). And once again, being forced to donate a kidney to save someone is still different to actively ending the life of a fetus, and yes this applies to this being a unique scenario because in no other circumstance is there an inextricable linkage between two human bodies. 

[John Slayne]

1 hour ago, Literature said:

I also said that in life-threatening scenarios the life of the mother overrides the life of the baby, no matter how far into the pregancy, so not sure why you added that in your comment as if I was against that.

...but why? this is yet another inconsistency on your part. so you are saying that the foetus is a full person that has the right to live even at the cost of the gestator's body but when it's life-threatening suddenly the gestator overrides the foetus? literally for what reason. by your logic we should be tossing a coin and deciding who to save based on that. if your only reason is that the gestator is older you are just being ageist.

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, Literature said:

See I actually agree with you there. If the fetus is life-threatening to the mother then I think abortion is a fair option, as her right to life supercedes the fetus's. But I wouldn't agree that the right to bodily autonomy overrides the right to life especially as the fetus gets older (which is why i think there is some room for abortion in the early period although we may disagree on what constitutes a valid reason). And once again, being forced to donate a kidney to save someone is still different to actively ending the life of a fetus, and yes this applies to this being a unique scenario because in no other circumstance is there an inextricable linkage between two human bodies. 

 

1 minute ago, John Slayne said:

...but why? this is yet another inconsistency on your part. so you are saying that the foetus is a full person that has the right to live even at the cost of the gestator's body but when it's life-threatening suddenly the gestator overrides the foetus? literally for what reason. by your logic we should be tossing a coin and deciding who to save based on that. if your only reason is that the gestator is older you are just being ageist.

Plus they just said abortion is immoral and not comparable to removal of life support because "one is just starting life and the other is already guaranteed to die at one point". But... wouldn't the same logic apply to a fetus and the gestator? 

[Literature]

2 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

...but why? this is yet another inconsistency on your part. so you are saying that the foetus is a full person that has the right to live even at the cost of the gestator's body but when it's life-threatening suddenly the gestator overrides the foetus? literally for what reason. by your logic we should be tossing a coin and deciding who to save based on that. if your only reason is that the gestator is older you are just being ageist.

Because I do think there is at least some value in already being an established human being, however little it may be with regards to human life

[HBK-79]

All the MAGAts who were anti-vaccine and anti-mask are actually stanning this.

 

Apparently, in America, guns are people and women are service animals.

[John Slayne]

2 minutes ago, Literature said:

See I actually agree with you there. If the fetus is life-threatening to the mother then I think abortion is a fair option, as her right to life supercedes the fetus's. But I wouldn't agree that the right to bodily autonomy overrides the right to life especially as the fetus gets older (which is why i think there is some room for abortion in the early period although we may disagree on what constitutes a valid reason). And once again, being forced to donate a kidney to save someone is still different to actively ending the life of a fetus, and yes this applies to this being a unique scenario because in no other circumstance is there an inextricable linkage between two human bodies. 

You literally ignored my point. Abortion is about ending the pregnancy. It is NOT about killing the foetus. That's just the byproduct of an abortion, but not its active aim. People don't get abortion because they want to kill. They get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant. The same way people refuse to donate organs not because they want people to die, but because they do not wish to lose their organs, which is a valid decision from my bodily autonomy argument. 

 

So I am still waiting for you to explain how it is different to organ donation, because by that logic I could also say that your refusal to donate a kidney is an act which causes a person on the waiting list to suffer or even die. 

 

What exactly is the 'inextricable linkage' and why does it matter? I thought for the purposes of this argument we agreed that a foetus is its own person with its own right to live, just like the gestator. They are not one entity. My argument is simple: you can't force a person to use a part of their body to save someone else's life. That's it. I don't see why it matters whether the person is a foetus in uterus or a person without functioning kidney on a waiting list. You are assigning special values to foetuses growing inside of uteruses for literally no reason. In both cases it's about needing consent before you use someone's body to keep another person alive.

 

[Communion]

1 minute ago, John Slayne said:

You literally ignored my point. Abortion is about ending the pregnancy. It is NOT about killing the foetus. That's just the byproduct of an abortion, but not its active aim. People don't get abortion because they want to kill. They get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant. The same way people refuse to donate organs not because they want people to die, but because they do not wish to lose their organs, which is a valid decision from my bodily autonomy argument. 

 

So I am still waiting for you to explain how it is different to organ donation, because by that logic I could also say that your refusal to donate a kidney is an act which causes a person on the waiting list to suffer or even die. 

 

What exactly is the 'inextricable linkage' and why does it matter? I thought for the purposes of this argument we agreed that a foetus is its own person with its own right to live, just like the gestator. They are not one entity. My argument is simple: you can't force a person to use a part of their body to save someone else's life. That's it. I don't see why it matters whether the person is a foetus in uterus or a person without functioning kidney on a waiting list. You are assigning special values to foetuses growing inside of uteruses for literally no reason. In both cases it's about needing consent before you use someone's body to keep another person alive.

 

[John Slayne]

10 minutes ago, Literature said:

Because I do think there is at least some value in already being an established human being, however little it may be with regards to human life

You are just being ageist in that case. You think the gestator's is more valuable because they are older and have more experience, or are 'establishe' (whatever that means). The question then is how far are you willing to take this logic and how do you apply it for other cases? Let's say there's an orphan who just turned 18 so they live on their own. They have no family or friends and haven't had time to start a family. Would it be then okay to kill them, harvest their organs and save 5 people in their 30s who are 'more established', meaning they have careers, families, friends, children, etc.? Because if we don't kill that lonely teenager then those 5 people will die which cause a lot of pain to their families and will be a loss for the communities/jobs as well. 

 

If you are saying one life is more important than another based on experience or 'establishedness' then essentially that's what you are saying, it is ok to sacrifice one person to save another as long as they are more 'established', I don't see why that logic should be applied only for pregnancy since, like YOU said, a foetus is a full person just like people who were already born. 

[John Slayne]

27 minutes ago, Literature said:

Because I do think there is at least some value in already being an established human being, however little it may be with regards to human life

Also this is yet another inconsistency, because a foetus is according to you worth saving more (and therefore more valuable) than a person without functioning kidneys but at the same time the same foetus is also less valuable than an 'established' human being, which is what people waiting for organs are. 

 

So which is it, is the foetus more important or less important than grown humans?